About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
was always striving for a big deal. from the speaker's perspective, the white house at the last minute from their view moved the goal posts. they -- what it sounds like, not only comes to some agreement on a framework, but they were talking real details on some of these proposals, having to do with cuts and spending cuts and medicare and enconstitutitlemen all that. after this agreement that they have come to -- it had reached, they say the white house moved the goal posts. and in their view, speaker bane her to step back, take stock of the situation and really look at the calendar very seriously. as he said had, to do something because the white house's vision was not in line with that of congress. and that's why speaker boehner has now made this very aggressive move saying he's now just working with congress on this. >> jessica, we're running very tight on time tonight. i want to get through a lot fast. is there a sense when you look at the numbers that both sides talk about, even if you take their conflicting versions of what happened, i had the sense they were both talking about really
ticking down to the compromise. that's a big question leading into tomorrow, and the answer is they need democrats here. >> if you think at home this is washington gobble degook it matters to you, could be higher interest rates, your mortgage, other things. hope to see you tomorrow night. hope to see you tomorrow night. "in the arena" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com >>> good evening, welcome to the program. i'm don lemon. our top story, a day of dramatic confrontation in the murdoch scandal. british lawmakers grilled rupert murdoch and his son james for hours and hearing televised all over the world. murdoch's media empire has been rocked by accusations of police payoffs, phone hacking and corruption at his british newspapers. and troughout the hearing, all of the charges kept coming back to one central question. take a listen. >> do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco? >> no. >> you are not responsible? who is responsible? >> the people that i trusted to run -- and then maybe the people they trusted. >> the murdochs
the murdoch family what they created here. this is an empire and a big, bad thing to rip that away. and we should say this. there have been plenty of other journalistic scandals in the past and the reason they've been scandals because people haven't done their jobs and run things up the chain of command and haven't been aware of them and whether that is jason blair at "the new york times" or problems cnn had the past with the famous tail wind situation, where people didn't know what they should have known, that's what happens. but at some point, people have to take responsibility and decide what kind of company they want to run and what they want it to be. >> i have never run a company, and you talk to the boss every time. usually the standard answer, i let them hire people, and let them do their thing, and stand back. in this day and age, when you have these sorts of scandals and so many people under you, and big conglomerations, you can't be that hands off. you cannot not have clothes. >> i do think that a person who runs a big company can't be responsible for every big decision. >> but,
targeted. only $850 billion in deficit reduction as opposed to the $1.2 trillion they were targeting. a big problem. they're now scrambling to rewrite the bill and it is unclear what will really happen. they were spending all day today trying to sell the bill to their members, gloria. not rewrite it'll. >> so what happens? we weren't sure he had the votes before to pass it in the house. now it looks even less likely, right? >> definitely seems like more problem, more headaches added to the speaker's plate. unclear. what we were told as this was happening, they were aiming for a vote tofmorrow. unclear. definitely, very easy to understand that it would be even a bigger problem selling this to house conservative who's were already complaining that this bill didn't go far enough. >> and clearly, kate, the speaker does not want to lose. so thank you very much. and stay on top of that story. it is important. meanwhile tonight, we're getting some mixed messages out of the white house, too. just a short time ago on cnn, white house communications director dan pfeiffer told jessica yellin that pres
this? >> the big box office will be rupert murdoch, one of the world's most powerful media moguls, sitting in front of members of parliament in the british house of commons, being cross-examined essentially about what he knew at news international, news corp, about this phone hacking scandal, we are expecting to hear much less from rebekah brooks, former ceo of news international. editor of "news of the world" as with she's already been arrested so there is a police investigation into her conduct and her -- what she's been up to. and so she's going to be much more con stained as to what she'll be able to see legally to the mps, who will be asking questions. also constraints on what the mps can ask rebekah brooks. they don't want to jeopardize the ongoing criminal investigation into what brooks may or may not have done. an interesting day to watch tomorrow. >> matthew chance in london tonight, thank you very much. >>> now more on in-depth coverage. together with sean hoare, paul mcmullan was one of the first to go on record alleging illegal activity. he was a features executive. wh
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)